Glenn Beck is saying it is Rand Paul who hit it out of the park last night. He was far more specific. Rand Paul has also been shaping up his foreign policy views to be acceptable to conservatives, to be prudent in our support of allies, unlike his father's extreme refusal to project force.

Though there are areas where I lack confidence in his judgment, there are many where we are in strong agreement. He appears to be a man of genuine conviction for our Founding Fathers and our Constitution and possesses the spine, testicles, and heart to stand strong. This is a quite rare; the man bears close watching for greater things.

Rand Paul brought a great deal of attention to the issue of using drones on American soil to kill Americans without due process; he also brought some Republicans together that were really fired up on the net and liking his leadership. The hash tag #StandWithRand was trending number one both nationally and world on Twitter so he's going to get some name recognition out of it. I think he put a little mark on Obama's dictatorship. P.C.

Rand Paul is the anti-neo-con of our time and he has made some good points in that regard. One point he made that I liked was pointing out that Reagan saying 'Peace through Strength' meant peace through deterrence, not (necessarily) peace through war.

This tough critique of Rand Paul, link below, is from the Washington Post, but it is written by Jennifer Rubin who is their resident conservative. She brings up quite a few points, one is his use of Eisenhower as a model:

"Ironically, Paul cites President Dwight D. Eisenhower as a model. His knowledge must be tissue-paper thin. Let’s skip over Ike’s leadership in WWII and NATO for the moment. (I don’t know whether Paul was in favor of WWII, but someone should ask.) Eisenhower wasn’t shy about using the CIA to further our national interests, including attempting to subvert governments. He kept the defense budget at about half of the federal budget. He funded Middle East allies as part of his Cold War strategy. He sent troops to Lebanon. He maintained our defense of Taiwan and amply funded NATO. If this is Paul’s model, perhaps he isn’t so bad, you say. But in fact Eisenhower is good for a quote, as far as Paul is concerned, but the strategy that kept the peace and advanced U.S. interests is of little interest to him."

Coincidentally I happen to have caught this one. FWIW IMHO Rand has evolved considerably from his father's simplistic isolationism, but in one of the segments I saw with him recently he badly flubbed the key question-- what would a President Rand do?

I caught a snippet of an interview with Ron Paul yesterday in which his vision for the Rep Party winning elections impressed me in its vision for reaching voter blocks currently cold to the Rep Party e.g. he saw Privacy issues as being a good natural fit for the Reps and that it would appeal to all, including the young.

I caught a snippet of an interview with Ron Paul yesterday in which his vision for the Rep Party winning elections impressed me in its vision for reaching voter blocks currently cold to the Rep Party e.g. he saw Privacy issues as being a good natural fit for the Reps and that it would appeal to all, including the young.

Agree that people should be ready to embrace a right of privacy. Who knows about the young as they put everything out there on Facebook and Twitter. Still, it is they who decide what to broadcast and what to keep private, not a mandate out of Washington. ObamaCare is the most bold, egregious and obvious violation of privacy this nation has ever seen (IMHO). I have no idea how to convince anyone of the dangers of that if they don't already see it. NSA is another privacy problem. Security is necessary in a time of terror but combine that with the dishonesty and abuse witnessed in the IRS targeting scandal, Benghazi, Obamacare, Merkel spying etc., and the trust is gone.

I caught Rand Paul on one of the FOX shows last night talking about "Enterprise Zones on Steroids" as a solution for Detroit. He was articulate not only about the particulars, but in a big picture way too for the future of freedom and the Rep Party. Definitely someone to watch for!

Sen. Rand Paul vowed Friday to push a proposal to create “economic freedom zones” in Detroit that would slash taxes and regulatory red tape in an attempt to revive the city’s economy.

Speaking at the Detroit Economic Club, Mr. Paul, a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said that the model could be used in cities and counties across the nation and said that it would allow Detroit to hang onto $1.3 billion in tax revenue that otherwise would have been sent to the federal government.

“What Detroit needs to thrive is not Washington’s domineering hand, but freedom from big government’s mastery,” the Kentucky Republican said. “The answer to poverty and unemployment is not another government stimulus. It is simply leaving more money in the hands of those who earn it.”

Detroit recently became the largest municipality in the history of the nation to enter Chapter 9 bankruptcy. The city faces an $18 billion in debt and long-term liabilities. Conservatives have pointed to Detroit as an example of what can go wrong when elected leaders pursue liberal policies and bow to the demands of labor unions. Mr. Paul, though, said that both parties share some of the blame for Detroit’s economic woes and said that it is time to for Congress to try a new approach to getting the city back on its feet. Mr. Paul promised to introduce the “Economic Freedom Zone Act of 2013” next week and said it expands upon ideas that former Republican Rep. Jack Kemp introduced decades ago.

“This is Jack Kemp’s enterprise zones on steroids,” he said.

The proposal would lower personal and corporate incomes taxes in Detroit to five percent and lower the payroll tax to two percent for employees and employers. It also would suspend the capital gains tax, in an attempt to spur greater investment in businesses and real estate.

“These zones free up Detroit to bail themselves out,” Mr. Paul said, adding that they also could help struggling communities across the country, including 20 counties in his home state. “Right now any community with 12 percent [unemployment] or more would be eligible for these freedom zones.”

Mr. Paul said his proposal is an example of how the nation can start moving away from big government bailouts that have not worked and start thinking differently about how best to tackle the nation’s most pressing problems.

He also said lawmakers should rethink the war on drugs and reshape the drug laws and court system that disproportionately punishes minority communities. He said that that voting rights of some convicted felons who have completed their sentences should be restored and there should be a bigger push toward more school choice.

My thought is that he can be (already is) a GREAT Senator. Why screw that up with unsuccessful and divisive Presidential run.

If R's should somehow take the White House, and the post-filibuster Senate while holding the House, they will need strong voices and consciences like those of Rand Paul to keep them honest and on track.

I saw Paul on Chris Wallace's Sunday AM FOX show yesterday and thought he was very good. He defends his Detroit plan well and handled other penetrating questions by Chris Wallace, who can be a very tough questioner, well too.

Some of those questions concerned NSA spying. Paul answered that yes there are bad people of whom we need to keep track, but within the 4th Amendment. He made what I thought was a simple, comprehensible, intelligent, reassuring to American values, voter attractive point: Treat third party records as requiring a warrant e.g. reject that argument that the privacy of whom you call has been surrendered because the phone company has the records of it.

Yesterday RP brought up Spermgate in the context of an interview about Hillary. Error in my opinion.

As far as most people are concerned the issue has been presented to the American people and settled and bringing it up now is going to play poorly.

When hit with the "Rep War on Women" meme, a fair rejoinder could certainly include reference to Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick (wasn't she the one Bill groped against her will in the WH when she came to ask for a job? on the very day that her husband, also a loyal Clintonite, was committing suicide? or something like that?) but in this moment RP displayed a serious tin ear on an issue that is usually a seriously weak link politically for Reps.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371201/rand-pauls-frivolous-nsa-lawsuit-andrew-c-mccarthy February 15, 2014 4:00 AMRand Paul’s Frivolous NSA LawsuitThe claim that metadata collection runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment is specious.By Andrew C. McCarthy ...let’s say Senator Paul and I rob a bank together and we stash the money in my house. If the police break down my door without a warrant and seize the cash, prosecutors will not be permitted to use it as evidence against me because their trespass on my property violates my Fourth Amendment rights. But the courts will allow prosecutors to use the money as evidence against Senator Paul. The Fourth Amendment, even as expanded, gives him no property interest and no expectation of privacy in my home and the items located there, even if he has a significant personal interest in those items.

"let’s say Senator Paul and I rob a bank together and we stash the money in my house. If the police break down my door without a warrant and seize the cash, prosecutors will not be permitted to use it as evidence against me because their trespass on my property violates my Fourth Amendment rights. But the courts will allow prosecutors to use the money as evidence against Senator Paul"

I often thought about the crimes the NSA must be discovering even incidently that they will and can do nothing about. If only they would uncover organized criminals in the entertainment industry.....

I know I walk into a minefield on this one.

As for Paul. I like the guy. Crafty pointed out we need someone who can speak well, concisely, and with emotion. Paul can do the first two but so far he definitely lacks the latter. I see him as a eye doctor who is so totally clinical. Yes, you have macular degeneration and you may go blind but there is little or only a few things we can do. No real emotion. No warm and fuzzy sympathy or empathy. Just the facts.

Unless he corrects this he will never cross over. Ever. That is why he gets tepid to no applause when he does not speak to conservative audiences.

ccp, I like Rand Paul too. I disagree with him in two important issue areas but he is a great champion of liberty and smaller government. His willingness to stand up to his own party is a good trait. I don't see him as the President / Commander in Chief, but he most certainly is a leader. Personally I hope he puts most of his energy into the issues that unite us. Same for the others.

The piece criticizing Paul's NSA lawsuit makes reasonable points, albeit in a somewhat hyperventilated manner IMHO. I get the point over who owns the phone company records, but it seems to me a reasoned argument can be that the understanding of the fourth included the notion that people's mail and to whom it was mailed was private-- the possibility of keeping track was not even on the radar screen (because , , , radar screens did not exist )

Doug:The piece criticizing Paul's NSA lawsuit makes reasonable points, albeit in a somewhat hyperventilated manner IMHO. I get the point over who owns the phone company records, but it seems to me a reasoned argument can be that the understanding of the fourth included the notion that people's mail and to whom it was mailed was private-- the possibility of keeping track was not even on the radar screen (because , , , radar screens did not exist )

Agree.

There is a point to be made for privacy, and there is a point to be made for security. I am a huge advocate and defender of privacy (as are you!). I have asked on the forum for words that describe the accepted, unenumerated right of privacy. I don't believe that has been answered. I think this is more a question for public policy than for a constitutional, judicial challenge. As you say, it involves things not contemplated at the framing. As Bigdog says, there are examples where conservatives also want to expand the words and meaning of the framers to fit their needs; this is one. Instead of doing that, why not fully contemplate it now and write and pass an amendment, instead of pretending the words and meaning already address this.

This, IMO, shows major tin ear. Of course I get the point, but it is NOT going to play well with most women. On top of that, lot's of people will wonder WTF Bill's dalliances have to do with Hillary being president or not and more people will say "We've been through this quite a bit already-- including impeachment. Is this the best you've got?"

This, IMO, shows major tin ear. Of course I get the point, but it is NOT going to play well with most women. On top of that, lot's of people will wonder WTF Bill's dalliances have to do with Hillary being president or not and more people will say "We've been through this quite a bit already-- including impeachment. Is this the best you've got?"

This, IMO, shows major tin ear. Of course I get the point, but it is NOT going to play well with most women. On top of that, lot's of people will wonder WTF Bill's dalliances have to do with Hillary being president or not and more people will say "We've been through this quite a bit already-- including impeachment. Is this the best you've got?"

I agree with GM. Bill needs to have his baggage pinned to him. Hillary was the enabler and the leader of the smear campaign against the women. Neither of them has ever acknowledged the predatory nature of the 'relationships' or the enabler role that she played.

Rand Paul has no insecurity about lack of substance. I'm sure he would love to debate Hillary anytime on any issue. The best we've got is that Hillary supported the policies that are taking down this nation. She logged a zillion miles as Sec State and has no accomplishment to show for it.

How many young people know Bill Clinton was impeached, shamed the Oval Office, lied under oath, was disbarred? How many young women know Hillary was conspiring to smear each of Bill's accusers and victims? Dropping drawers, groping, fondling rape, it wasn't all consensual! People should know and the media isn't going to tell them.

BTW Hillary is writing a book about her time as Secretary of State. I wonder how the chapter on Benghazi is going. I'll suggest a title - in a shrill tone: AT THIS POINT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!

The Lewinsky thing reminds women of all the stories they have heard about their girlfriends (or themselves) putting up with their husbands' shenanigans-- why, they will wonder-- should that hurt Hillary's chance to be president? Bill is not running she is, blah blah.

I think the question for Paul, at least as it relates to the 2016 presidential election, should be: will this attract voters. It might play a part in a win in the primary, but I suspect (but don't know) that it will not attract the "average" voter. Moreover, I suspect that the stance will likely repel that voter. And if you can't appeal to the average, you can win the general.

Crafty and Bigdog may be right here about the negative effect for Republicans with independents and centrists. Still I think it is important that someone keep pointing out truths about both Clintons. On one hand we are saying that Ted Nugent can't be used to rev up a crowd because of association of a candidate or official with statements Nugent made or words he has used. Then on the other hand, in a most crucial Senate race we see a pretty, married, 35 year old woman (Grimes of Kentucky) use a serial sexual predator to rev up a crowd for her, while running against the 'Republican war on women'. Why does this not shine badly on her judgment? The hypocrisy should go unmentioned?

As it applies to 2016, I don't see Rand Paul as the nominee. Typically it is the VP who does this type of hatchet work. I do see Rand Paul as an excellent tactician. Maybe he is not running, as he has implied, and this type of work is just taking one for the team. Or maybe he is acting like a VP candidate now with a plan of elevating in time for 2016. If he is running, this is not the general election, it is the fight for the nomination, and what counts is his standing with people who vote in Republican caucuses and primaries.

The Bill Clinton behavior was not run of the mill unfaithfulness. It was a conspiracy run with the power of the Governor's office and then the power of the Presidency, putting demands on everyone from highway Patrol and Secret Service to executive staff. The 'shenanigans' were not all consensual. Upon learning about it, attacking Republicans is not the normal wife/girlfriend response. The anger she expressed was about him being stupid and getting caught. Has Hillary ever called him out for the abuse of his executive power? No, instead she attacked ALL the people who did that.

SHE was a crook. If Rand Paul is making a strategy of going after the Clintons and he seems to have done his homework, I doubt if we have seen all he has to say. When people have heard enough about the Clinton scandals of the 70s, 80s and 90s, Rand Paul can move right over to Benghazi:

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul warned Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday over the occupation of southern Ukraine, with the libertarian-leaning Republican claiming that “if he’s going to act like a rogue nation, he will be isolated.”

Paul spoke to Fox News’ Greta van Susteren at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where he delivered a speech on Friday. “What will you do about Putin and Ukraine?” the reporter asked the prospective 2016 presidential candidate.

Often criticized by right-wing hawks for his push to limit American involvement overseas Paul’s response indicated a willingness to articulate clear consequences to aggression without resorting to military confrontation. “We have to tell him that his behavior is unacceptable. He needs to be isolated,” the senator said. “And if he’s going to act like a rogue nation, he will be isolated.”

“I don’t think that involves a military option,” Paul continued, “and I think that most of the party has come to my way of thinking on this, that there really isn’t a military option for us there. That doesn’t mean that we don’t react, and that we don’t let Putin know in clear and uncertain terms that what he’s done is unacceptable.”

The senator also noted that if Russia pushes beyond Crimea and invades the rest of the country, an international response may be the least of Putin’s problems. “If he tries to further occupy Ukraine, my prediction is Ukraine becomes Syria,” he said, referencing the bloody 3-year civil war ravaging that country. “If Ukraine becomes Syria it’ll be a disaster for Russia, and he better think twice about it. Because one Ukrainian teenager with $200 of explosives could disrupt his pipelines.”

Libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said on Sunday that he would have responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by “drilling every possible conceivable place” in the U.S. if he were president.

Following his Saturday win in the Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll, Paul was asked by Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday if he was willing to let Russian President Vladimir Putin have the Ukraine peninsula of Crimea.

“If they annex Crimea, Ukraine will almost certainly come within the Western orbit,” Paul explained. “So, it will backfire on them. Because you will be taking Russian-speaking voters that have been speaking for Russian-speaking presidents of Ukraine, you’ll be taking them out of the population.”

“The other thing I’ve said is, that I would do something differently from the president,” the Kentucky Republican added. “I would immediately get every obstacle out of the way for our export of oil and gas.”

“And I would begin drilling in every possible conceivable place within our territories in order to have production we can supply Europe with if it’s interrupted from Ukraine.”

Paul continued an assault on Obama's record, getting laughs when he asked how history will remember the president, and later quoting Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters in asking whether former supporters of the president now believed they had "trade[d] your heroes for your ghosts? … Did they get you to exchange a walk-on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"http://www.dailypaul.com/313910/1st-politician-ever-to-quote-a-roger-waters-song-awesome

Waters supports "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" against Israel, opposes the policies of Israel, but explains that he is not anti-Jew: "To peacefully protest against Israel’s racist domestic and foreign policies is NOT ANTI-SEMITIC." https://www.facebook.com/notes/roger-waters-the-wall/an-open-letter-from-roger-waters/688037331210720

"You could almost say that Paul is the ONLY interesting candidate on the immediate horizon — Republican or Democrat." ... "He seems future oriented, unlike the rest of the potential candidates who mouth platitudes, liberal and conservative, bashing each other in the most tedious manner imaginable."----------------------------Other CPAC winners: Jack Kemp (won in 1986, 1987, and 1993), Phil Gramm (1995), Steve Forbes (1998), Gary Bauer (1999), Rudy Giuliani (2005) George Allen (2006)... the all-time winner with four CPAC straw poll wins is Mitt Romney (2007-2009), and again in 2012. http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/10/youre-never-going-to-believe-whos-won-the-most-cpac-straw-polls-in-history/(Not too many Presidential winners on that list.)

Rand Paul's ReaganHow much of Reagan's foreign policy would Rand Paul have supported?

By DANIEL HENNINGER

June 25, 2014 7:14 p.m. ETSenator Rand Paul wrote an essay for The Wall Street Journal last week, "America Shouldn't Choose Sides in Iraq's Civil War," in which he associated his attitude toward overseas interventions with the foreign-policy principles of Ronald Reagan. "Though many claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan on foreign policy," Sen. Paul wrote, "too few look at how he really conducted it." Essentially what this means, Sen. Paul continued, is that "Like Reagan . . . we should never be eager to go to war."

The Kentucky Republican doubts that Reagan would have committed U.S. troops to driving out Saddam Hussein, as President George W. Bush did. And he strongly implies that Ronald Reagan, like the senator, would not want to involve the U.S. in Iraq's current catastrophe.

To support the similarity between his views and Reagan's, Sen. Paul cites the Weinberger Doctrine as a summary of the 40th president's views on foreign interventions. Caspar Weinberger, Reagan's secretary of defense, articulated what came to be known as the Weinberger Doctrine in a November 1984 speech at the National Press Club.

As accurately summarized by Sen. Paul, Weinberger said the U.S. shouldn't commit combat forces unless America's vital interests are involved, should do so only if we intend to win, have clear political and military goals, the capacity to achieve them, the support of Congress and the U.S. public, and act only as a last resort. Sen. Paul wants his readers to believe that Weinberger's view was Reagan's view.

As he prepares for his all-but-certain presidential run in 2016, Sen. Paul seems to have decided that he needs to refine his—and his father's—reputation for non-interventionist absolutism. A Washington Post-ABC poll this week suggests that U.S. attitudes toward intervention are in flux, and a center may be re-forming over how much global disintegration the public is willing to accept.

Though most oppose ground troops, about 54% of men want the U.S. to bomb ISIS, the al Qaeda affiliate overrunning much of Iraq. More striking, 44% of Democrats want to hit them. Women are opposed by a slim 52%. Let us posit that Ronald Reagan did not wake up each day from 1981 through 1988 and read opinion polls before figuring out what to do about the world's realities.

As to the Gipper's principles, Sen. Paul overstates reality when he suggests that the Weinberger Doctrine was Reagan's doctrine. The Weinberger Doctrine described in Mr. Paul's piece was Caspar Weinberger's personal opinion. His speech occurred amid an internal Reagan administration debate about how to deal with a new and murderous global threat: terrorism flowing out of the Middle East.

Reagan's secretary of state, George Shultz, describes the disagreements with Weinberger over the use of force in his 1993 memoir, "Turmoil and Triumph."

"Cap's doctrine," Sec. Shultz wrote, "bore relevance to a major, conventional war between adversarial armed forces. In the face of terrorism, or any of the wide variety of complex, unclear, gray-area dangers facing us in the contemporary world, however, his was a counsel of inaction bordering on paralysis."

While there was never a formal Reagan Doctrine, Ronald Reagan himself said enough and did enough to know where he stood. In his 1985 State of the Union, Reagan said, "We cannot play innocents abroad in a world that's not innocent."

Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire," aligned his own policy toward Soviet Communism with the idea of "rollback," stood at the Brandenburg Gate and cried, " Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," increased U.S. defense spending, deployed Pershing 2 ballistic missiles and cruise missiles in Europe amid world-wide protests in 1983, invaded Grenada the same year, and gave U.S. support to anticommunist movements in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Angola and Latin America—with many congressional Democrats in a towering rage of eight-year opposition to nearly all of it. The words Reagan used most to support all this were "freedom" and "democracy." He ended four decades of Cold War.

That is the Reagan mantle. Which parts of it would Rand Paul have taken on?

The experiences of the U.S. during the past five years with Barack Obama has led to one clear, nonpartisan conclusion: The risks of a rookie presidency are too big.Barack Obama created a wondrous presidential campaign machine. His experience to govern a nation was zero. More than any time in memory, whoever is president in January 2017 will have to hit the ground running with a plan—from day one.

Conservatives or candidates who think it should be possible to ride charisma or even ideology to victory, and then figure out the details of a great nation's policies once in power should read Martin Anderson's detailed 1988 account of Ronald Reagan's path to the White House, "Revolution." And specifically, the chapter "Reagan's Advisers." It is a blueprint for at least the chance of a successful presidency, which the U.S. desperately needs.

Reagan's was a remarkable presidency. But Ronald Reagan was no rookie. And there is no such thing as a presidential prodigy. We know that now.

I think it wil be interested to see how Paul straddles this fence (FP). As a 'good' conservative in my eyes, I am actually quite hopeful about his ability to serve the pro-Constitutional movement; and actually went to a RNC luncheon just to watch him speak once last year (first time, that). However, as regards his father, I could not have supported, precisely becuase of his apparent ideology of Non-interventionism at (what apepars to be) almost any cost-- basically that's the same polciy we have right now and it's clearly not working. So, Rand has his work cut out for him in eclipsing that legacy, (or rather, maybe I should say in 'not allowing it to eclipse him'.) Personally I appreciate, however, his apparent ability to possibly appeal to the left, and his focus on privacy/ Fourth Amendment issues. So I think whehether as president or something else, his future contributions to the conservative movement wil be strong.

Disappointed he includes voter ID in this , , , but I do like that he is thinking outside the box.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s resistance to military intervention abroad is likely to be viewed as his biggest break from Republican tradition if he seeks his party’s nomination in 2016.

But Mr. Paul is also challenging his own party by increasingly embracing issues dear to the African-American voters who have overwhelmingly rejected the GOP for decades.

Mr. Paul is championing the restoration of voting rights to felons, wants to ease sentencing of nonviolent drug offenders and says he disagrees with Republican-led efforts in several states to curtail early voting and require voters to show photo ID at the polls.

On Friday, Mr. Paul is scheduled to speak to the National Urban League conference in Cincinnati, a mostly African American audience that’s often bypassed by potential Republican presidential candidates.

“I want to be known as a Republican who got more people to vote, not less,” Mr. Paul said in an interview.

Mr. Paul is sponsoring a bill that would allow non-violent felons to regain their voting rights after serving time. Mr. Paul also wants to downgrade some non-violent drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors to make it easier for those offenders to get jobs when they get out of jail. Minorities, he said, are disproportionately charged with drug crimes.

“The biggest impediment to both voting and getting a job is having a criminal record,” Mr. Paul said. “I’ve always felt like the war on drugs had gotten out of control, and as I’ve met different people in our cities I’ve become more aware there’s a racial element to the war on drugs.”

At a Senate hearing earlier this week on his bill, Mr. Paul said some drug offenders “are people who just made youthful mistakes.”

Some African American leaders say they welcome Mr. Paul’s outreach and ideas. But they also point to significant hurdles faced by a Republican, particularly a leader in the tea party movement, which has vigorously opposed President Barack Obama.

“It’s fascinating that on some issues like felon re-enfranchisement and criminal justice reform that his libertarian philosophy has brought him to some policies in common with the thinking of civil rights organizations,” said Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League. “Certainly some of the rhetoric associated with the tea party is anathema to many of us in the civil rights community, but I don’t like to paint with a broad brush.”

Mr. King recently said of Mr. Obama: “His vision of America isn’t like our version of America. That we know. Now I don’t assert where he was born, I will just tell you that we are all certain that he was not raised with an American experience. So these things that beat in our hearts when we hear the National Anthem and when we say the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t beat the same for him.”

Mr. Paul declined to say whether he disagreed with Mr. King. “I’d like to be judged on what I do and say and not what everybody else does,” he said. “I don’t think that’s a fair standard.”

A policy issue that could also divide Mr. Paul from black voters is the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, aimed at protecting minorities from discrimination. The Supreme Court struck down parts of the law last year.

“I’m a supporter of the Voting Rights Act and trying to figure out a way it can be done that is constitutional and in a fashion that only goes after perpetrators of discrimination, but not so much that the federal government is always involved in state elections,” Mr. Paul said.

Even if Mr. Paul is unsuccessful in garnering much support in the African American community, he may win over other Republican voters and even Democrats who approve of his outreach at a time when the electorate is become increasingly diverse.

“People will be paying attention who think the Republican Party needs to grow and evolve and speak to a broader audience, and if you can’t do that you can’t be a leader of a national party,” said Doug Stafford, Mr. Paul’s top political adviser. “He’s one of the few Republicans who can go in [to the black community] and say that some of their main issues are things he is a sponsor of. Not a whole lot of Republicans can have that conversation.”

Some of Mr. Paul’s potential rivals in 2016, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, have also talked about easing sentences on drug offenders and emphasizing treatment programs. But on the issues of allowing felons to vote again and requiring voters to show ID at the polls, Mr. Paul has little company among potential 2016 candidates. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have both defended the state’s rules stripping felons of their right to vote without a pardon from the governor, while Govs. Perry and Scott Walker of Wisconsin have backed voter ID laws.

Correction: Mr. Paul is sponsoring a bill that would allow non-violent felons to regain their voting rights after serving time. The initial version of this post incorrectly said Democratic Sen. Cory Booker was also a sponsor.

Rand Paul said in June he would not rule out air strikes in Iraq, but still it would seem that he is to the isolationist side and to the left of Pres Obama and potential foe Hillary Clinton on Libya, Iraq, Syria and foreign policy in general.

His outreach efforts could/should play well across the political spectrum, but he seems to be hemmed in by his previous isolationism. There does seem to be a way around this given ISIL's threats to the US homeland, but he's just not there.

His outreach efforts could/should play well across the political spectrum, but he seems to be hemmed in by his previous isolationism. There does seem to be a way around this given ISIL's threats to the US homeland, but he's just not there.

Yes. Also, so far he has always been able to avoid explaining and distancing himself from a long record of controversial remarks by his dad. As he rises in stature, the need to clarify will become greater.

For better or for worse, he would be slowest to respond to these situations as they arise, such as the bonfire once called the Middle East. If these two were the nominees, Hillary sadly would win the peace through strength argument.